• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Covid-19 & Football

Forums Unread posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
It'd be less expensive to dilute Tv money than the compensation relegated clubs could probably sue for if they're demoted on some unfair basis.

I think either way the remaining PL clubs are going to have to pay the others off.
 
That’s possible. Diluting payments would cost about £250 million in total.

Also, why even bother starting again when there is no relegation? We’ve won the title, nothing to play for down the bottom, city can’t qualify for Europe. It’s only going to be the few European spots left.
 
Last edited:
peterhague said:
Because it's a matter of tens of millions of pounds and all the affected clubs can reasonably argue the season hasn't been played out fairly.

It's so obviously a legal minefield, this. I do actually think the best solution would be no relegation and just 2 up and down in the other leagues, if you could get them to agree.
Click to expand...

Nah, the season needs to be played out, whether at a neutral venue or not, and same rules with relegation need to apply.
 
Gerry_A_Trick said:
Nah, the season needs to be played out, whether at a neutral venue or not, and same rules with relegation need to apply.
Click to expand...

It's not a question of what needs to happen, it's what recourse clubs have to compensation through the courts.

If a club gets relegated by a point and 9 of the games they played during the season were under unusual circumstances, they'll obviously have a good case to argue that the final standings are unfair.
 
peterhague said:
It's not a question of what needs to happen, it's what recourse clubs have to compensation through the courts.

If a club gets relegated by a point and 9 of the games they played during the season were under unusual circumstances, they'll obviously have a good case to argue that the final standings are unfair.
Click to expand...

They lose out with home advantage but gain with no away disadvantage.
 
peterhague said:
It's not a question of what needs to happen, it's what recourse clubs have to compensation through the courts.

If a club gets relegated by a point and 9 of the games they played during the season were under unusual circumstances, they'll obviously have a good case to argue that the final standings are unfair.
Click to expand...

I reckon they'll only have good reason if it's points per game. Behind closed doors is not usual, but happens in Europe, I'd be surprised if there's any meaningful effort in the courts about it if games are played.
 
momoWASboss said:
The Championssssssss

[article]
The Football Association has told the Premier League clubs that the season must be settled by “sporting merit”, potentially splitting the six bottom clubs over how to finish the season.

It means that issues like relegation or the title must be settled by either playing the remaining fixtures, or a formula like points-per-game.
[/article]

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...atest-sporting-merit-relegation-a9508601.html
Click to expand...
So in summary
- FA reject Null and Void
- FA reject no relegation.
- Govt so far have rejected home and away fixtures due to potential 'inner city congregations' and 'policing resources'.

Sounds like the bottom 3 (on PPG) are boxed into a corner. Along with those just outside the European places.

The Fume are going to be blowing their tops right now.
 
momoWASboss said:
They lose out with home advantage but gain with no away disadvantage.
Click to expand...

Doesn't necessarily work.

What if their away games are against top opposition and home games are winnable?

They probably gain nothing from the away games but lose a crucial advantage at home.

It's so obviously arguable that I can't see any team just taking it lying down.
 
It’s all ifs and buts. Like Brighton playing against us after we’ve got the title boxed off. We might not give a shit and play the reserves. They gain an advantage over Norwich as we were full strength in both games against them.
 
We only need to turn around & threaten to split off from the next tv deal to get them to change their vote, the other top 5 'big clubs' all want this to go ahead.

Four of the six no votes will hope to still be in the PL then & that threat alone will massively destabilise the PL, & if carried out, would have huge economic consequences for a lot of the teams in the league, as they're all well aware.
 
FoxForceFive said:
We only need to turn around & threaten to split off from the next tv deal to get them to change their vote, the other top 5 'big clubs' all want this to go ahead.

Four of the six no votes will hope to still be in the PL then & that threat alone will massively destabilise the PL, & if carried out, would have huge economic consequences for a lot of the teams in the league, as they're all well aware.
Click to expand...

Indeed, all they need to do is look towards the Spanish TV deals and they’ll reconsider..
 
69-698172_asterisk-free-images-red-asterisk-png-clipart.png
 
momoWASboss said:
That’s possible. Diluting payments would cost about £250 million in total.

Also, why even bother starting again when there is no relegation? We’ve won the title, nothing to play for down the bottom, city can’t qualify for Europe. It’s only going to be the few European spots left.
Click to expand...

I presume that you mean if there where another two clubs add to this 20 already in the premiere league yes...?

But wouldn’t that mean that both the TV broadcasters and the clubs make extra money...

The TV Broadcasters, because of being albe to screen 38 games they would be able to screen 40
And the clubs being able to have an extra home fixture and the gate revenues that it entails.

Not saying it would be fair to the clubs coming up as it would take away the chance of signing players from those who would have been demoted, and what about the teams in the playoff positions don’t they deserve a crack at being able to have a season or two in the Premiere League
 
It will be 22 clubs taking money from the same pot, meaning all teams get less. The U.K. broadcasting rights can’t change next year. Sky and BT can only show x number of games. That represents 75% of the leagues income.

That might change if all games are still behind closed doors.
 
momoWASboss said:
It will be 22 clubs taking money from the same pot, meaning all teams get less. The U.K. broadcasting rights can’t change next year. Sky and BT can only show x number of games. That represents 75% of the leagues income.

That might change if all games are still behind closed doors.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you've taken into account the lack of parachute payments in your figures, that will probably save 100 million or so.
 
I hadn’t calculated that, but that is just kicking the can down the road. That’ll be paid to the extra teams relegated the season after.

Those who were relegated over the previous 2 seasons will still get their payments.
 
I don’t think we will extend the contracts for our lot who can leave for free.

[article]“What was agreed today is that players can extend their contracts beyond June 30 until the end of the season but it must be agreed by both parties and a later date can be scheduled for that; no later than June 23.”
[/article]
 
peterhague said:
It's not a question of what needs to happen, it's what recourse clubs have to compensation through the courts.

If a club gets relegated by a point and 9 of the games they played during the season were under unusual circumstances, they'll obviously have a good case to argue that the final standings are unfair.
Click to expand...
By the same token the courts would be bound to take into consideration the unusual circumstances and the lengths the FA went to to ensure the PL was settled in a sporting manner. I couldn't see any of them gaining any satisfaction via the legal system.
 
momoWASboss said:
I don’t think we will extend the contracts for our lot who can leave for free.

[article]“What was agreed today is that players can extend their contracts beyond June 30 until the end of the season but it must be agreed by both parties and a later date can be scheduled for that; no later than June 23.”
[/article]
Click to expand...
I think we will, simply cos I see the extension as being a wordier version of 'your contract contract will be extended on the same terms until this season ends'.

It's in our favour, cos it means a settled squad, & more players should we be playing every couple of days (which is likely), & in their favour, cos they won't be able to move (most likely) until after the season is completed.

There'd also possibly be an issue regards bonus payments, which are paid at season end, with us being top of the league that will represent a fair chunk of cash, & if they're not with us at the end of the season it make make those payments invalid.
 
momoWASboss said:
It will be 22 clubs taking money from the same pot, meaning all teams get less. The U.K. broadcasting rights can’t change next year. Sky and BT can only show x number of games. That represents 75% of the leagues income.

That might change if all games are still behind closed doors.
Click to expand...

If there are 22 teams then surely the TV deal was struck with 20 teams in mind so does this not mean a seperate deal would be needed for this 22 team Premiere League format...?

And the 75% of broadcasting rights is also largue due to the extra teams...?

Or am I getting this wrong...?
 
FoxForceFive said:
I think we will, simply cos I see the extension as being a wordier version of 'your contract contract will be extended on the same terms until this season ends'.

It's in our favour, cos it means a settled squad, & more players should we be playing every couple of days (which is likely), & in their favour, cos they won't be able to move (most likely) until after the season is completed.

There'd also possibly be an issue regards bonus payments, which are paid at season end, with us being top of the league that will represent a fair chunk of cash, & if they're not with us at the end of the season it make make those payments invalid.
Click to expand...

Possibly yes for Lallana. Clyne definitely not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dee
  • Locked
Match Thread [Friendly] Liverpool vs Arsenal - Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia, July 31st 19:30 EDT (00:30 BST)
2 3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
2K
darkstarexodus
darkstarexodus
The Nomad
  • Locked
Ref Attack Attack Attack...
Replies
4
Views
264
Buddha
Buddha
Frogfish
  • Locked
Chelsea : CV-19 rampant
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
The Nomad
The Nomad
MomoWASright
  • Locked
F*** your fantasy football
Replies
6
Views
1K
The Nomad
The Nomad
Buddha
  • Locked
Jack (the lad?) Grealish
Replies
11
Views
2K
737Max
737Max
Back
Top Bottom